JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Applicant Sachin is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 235 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34 and 201 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station- Lalkuan, District-Nainital. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the deceased, a young girl of 18 years of age, left her house on 09.08.2022, but she did not return. A report was lodged by her mother. According to the prosecution case, subsequently, the applicant and the co-accused were arrested and at their instance, the dead body of the deceased and the weapon of offence were recovered from a forest. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence against the applicant. He would submit that, as per prosecution co accused-Yamin was in relationship with the deceased, and it is he, who killed the deceased; in the recovery memo, it is merely stated that the applicant was accompanying the co-accused. 5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the presence of the applicant is confirmed by the statement of Kishan Lal. He has referred to the statement, as recorded. 6. Learned State Counsel adopts the arguments made by learned counsel for the informant. 7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 8. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is the prosecution case that the co-accused was in relationship with the deceased. He wanted to get rid of her. It is he, who took the deceased along with him. 9. The statement of Kishan Lal reveals that when the co-accused called the applicant, he, along with the deceased, went in a forest, where the applicant was made to wait and the co-accused along with the deceased went inside the forest, and subsequently the co-accused came out and moved out from there without telling anything about the deceased to the applicant. 10. 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.